Monday, July 07, 2014

Theresa May Oral Statement to Parliament July 7th 2014 on Child Abuse 'by people in positions of power' and scope of Investigations.

Theresa May Oral Statement to Parliament July 7th 2014 on Child Abuse 'by people in positions of power' and scope of Investigations

(As with all such statements, the script below should be checked against delivery)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the
sexual abuse of children, allegations that evidence of the sexual abuse of
children was suppressed by people in positions of power, and the government’s
intended response.

Mr Speaker, in my statement today I want to address two important public
concerns. First, that in the 1980s the Home Office failed to act on allegations
of child sex abuse. And second, that public bodies and other important
institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards
children.

As I do so, I want to set three important principles. First, we will do
everything we can to allow the full investigation of child abuse and the
prosecution of its perpetrators, and we will do nothing to jeopardise those
aims. Second, where possible the government will adopt a presumption of maximum
transparency. And third, we will make sure that wherever individuals and
institutions have failed to protect children from harm, we will expose these
failures and learn the lessons.

CLICK BELOW TO READ FULL STATEMENT
Concern that the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child abuse in
the 1980s relates mainly to information provided to the department by the late
Geoffrey Dickens, a member of this House between 1979 and 1995.

As the House will be aware, in February 2013, in response to a Parliamentary
question from the Hon Member for West Bromwich East, the Permanent Secretary of
the Home Office, Mark Sedwill, commissioned an investigation by an independent
expert into information the Home Office received in relation to child abuse
allegations, including information provided by Mr Dickens. In order to be
confident that the investigation would review all relevant information, the
investigation reviewed all relevant papers available relating to child abuse
between 1979 and 1999.

The investigation reported last year and its executive summary was published
on 1 August 2013. It concluded there was no single “Dickens Dossier”, but there
had been letters from Mr Dickens to several home secretaries over several years
that contained allegations of sexual offences against children.

Copies of the
letters had not been kept, but the investigator found evidence that the
information Mr Dickens had provided had been considered and matters requiring
investigation had been referred to the police.

In total, the investigator found thirteen items of information about alleged
child abuse. The police already knew about nine of those items, and the
remaining four were passed by the Home Office to the police immediately.

The investigation found that 114 potentially relevant files were not
available. These are presumed – by the Home Office and the investigator –
destroyed, missing or not found, although the investigator made clear that he
found no evidence to suggest that the files had been removed or destroyed
inappropriately.

The investigation found no record of specific allegations by Mr Dickens of
child sex abuse by prominent public figures.

Upon completion of the investigation, the Home Office passed the full text of
its interim report and final report, along with accompanying information and
material, to the police for them to consider as part of their ongoing criminal
investigations.
As Mark Sedwill has said, the investigator recorded that he had unrestricted
access to Home Office records and he received full cooperation from Home Office
officials. The investigator was satisfied that the Home Office passed all
credible information about child abuse in the time period – from Mr Dickens and
elsewhere – to the police so they could be investigated properly.

Mr Speaker, I believe that the Permanent Secretary did all the right things
in listening to the allegations made by the Hon Member for West Bromwich East
and ordering an independent investigation. I am confident that the work he
commissioned was carried out in good faith. But I know that with allegations as
serious as these, the public needs to have complete confidence in the integrity
of the investigation’s findings.

So I can tell the House that I have today appointed Peter Wanless – the chief
executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children – to
lead a review not just of the investigation commissioned by Mark Sedwill but
also how the police and prosecutors handled any related information that was
handed to them. Peter Wanless will be supported in his work by an appropriate
senior legal figure, who will be appointed by the Permanent Secretary.

Where the
findings of the review relate to the Director of Public Prosecutions, it will
report to the Attorney General as well as to me.

I will ask the review team to advise my officials on what redactions to the
full investigation report might be needed in order that, in the interests of
transparency, it can be published without jeopardising any future criminal
investigations or trials. I expect the review to conclude within eight to ten
weeks, and I will place a copy of its terms of reference in the House Library
today.

In addition to the allegations made by Geoffrey Dickens, there have also been
allegations relating to an organisation called the Paedophile Information
Exchange, a paedophile campaign group that was disbanded in 1984. In response to
another query from the Hon Member for West Bromwich East, the Permanent
Secretary commissioned another independent investigation in January this year
into whether the Home Office had ever directly or indirectly funded PIE. That
investigation concluded that the Home Office had not done so, and I will place a
copy of the investigation’s findings in the House Library today. But, again, in
order to ensure complete public confidence in this work, I have also asked Peter
Wanless to look at this investigation as part of his review.

Mr Speaker, I now want to turn to public concern that a variety of public
bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty
of care towards children. In recent years, we have seen appalling cases of
organised and persistent child sex abuse. This includes abuse by celebrities
like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, as well as the systematic abuse of vulnerable
girls in Derby, Rochdale, Oxford and other towns and cities. Some of these cases
have exposed a failure by public bodies to take their duty of care seriously and
some have shown that the organisations responsible for protecting children from
abuse – including the police, social services and schools – have failed to work
together properly.

That is why, in April 2013, the government established the National Group to
tackle Sexual Violence Against Children and Vulnerable People, which is led by
my Hon Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention. This cross-government group was
established to learn the lessons from some of the cases I have mentioned and the
resulting reviews and inquiries. As a result of its work, we now have better
guidance for the police and prosecutors, new powers for the police to get
information from hotels that are used for child sexual exploitation, and better
identification of children at risk of exploitation through the use of local
multi-agency safeguarding hubs. In the normal course of its work the Group will
publish further proposals to protect children from abuse.

I know that in recent months many Members of the House, from all parties,
have campaigned for an independent, overarching inquiry into historical
allegations of child abuse. In my correspondence with the seven Members of
Parliament who wrote to me about the campaign – the Hon Members for Birmingham
Yardley, Brighton Pavilion, East Worthing and Shoreham, Richmond Park, Rochdale,
Wells, and West Bromwich East – I made clear that the government did not rule
out such an inquiry.

I can now tell the House that the government will establish an independent
inquiry panel of experts in the law and child protection to consider whether
public bodies – and other non-state institutions – have taken seriously their
duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.

The inquiry panel will be
chaired by an appropriately senior and experienced figure. It will begin its
work as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairman and other members
of the panel. Given the scope of its work, it is not likely to report before the
general election – but I will make sure that it provides an update on its
progress to Parliament before May next year.

I will report back to the House
when the inquiry panel chairman has been appointed and the full terms of
reference have been agreed.

It will, like the inquiries into Hillsborough and the murder of Daniel
Morgan, be a non-statutory panel inquiry. This means that it can begin its work
sooner, and because the basis of its early work will be a review of documentary
evidence rather than interviews with witnesses who might themselves still be
subject to criminal investigations, it will be less likely to prejudice those
investigations. But I want to be clear that the inquiry panel will have access
to all the government papers, reviews and reports it needs.

Subject to the
constraints imposed by any criminal investigations, it will be free to call
witnesses from organisations in the public sector, private sector and wider
civil society. And I want to make clear that – if the inquiry panel chairman
deems it necessary – the government is prepared to convert it into a full public
inquiry in line with the Inquiries Act.

Mr Speaker, I began my statement by saying that I wanted to address the dual
concern that in the past the Home Office failed to act on information it
received, and, more broadly, that public bodies and other institutions have
failed to protect children from sexual abuse. I believe that the measures I have
announced today do address those concerns.

I also said I wanted the work we are doing to reflect three principles. That
our priority must be the prosecution of the people behind these disgusting
crimes. That wherever possible – and consistent with the need to prosecute – we
will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency. And that where there has been
a failure to protect children from abuse, we will expose it and we will learn
from it. I believe that the measures announced today do reflect those important
principles. And so I commend this statement to the
House.

--------------

Kindly Note: An Updated version of this blogpost, will ALWAYS be found on the website E&OE google.com/+JulianBray All Enquiries 01733 345581 >>>> Police 101. Emergency 999. Crimestoppers 0800 555 111. <<<< CLICK ON RSS PANEL BELOW TO SEE ALL LATEST POST UPDATES & LATER BREAKING NEWS ADDITIONS
.
.

P'BORO TRIB. SEARCH ENGINE

LONDON EVENING STANDARD NEWSREEL

JULIAN BRAY AVIATION SECURITY NEWS 01733 345581 UK ISDN 01733 345020

UPDATES: Post are transmitted from a variety of remote sources, immediately published on servers in the USA, additions, updates and any corrections added later on the blog version only.

Editorial policy: WE DON'T CENSOR NEWS, we will however come down hard on lawbreakers, all forms of ASB - Anti Social Behaviour, and anyone or group who seek to disturb or disrupt our neighbourhoods and communities, or in anyway abuse, take unfair advantage or financially disadvantage our citizens.

We support the Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch and digitally carry the messages from this independently resourced Neighbourhood Watch Scheme. A scheme operated following written guidelines to us directly from the Home Office.

We are openly but constructively critical of all political parties (actual and sham), pressure groups, overbearing 'jobsworths' and those who seek to waste public funds, abuse public office, ramp up expenses, BUY VOTES and/or engage in any form of directed or robotic voting.

Whilst accepting that many in Public Office perform a valuable service and make a worthwhile contribution, there are others who are frankly rubbish. Although Julian Bray is the editor, there are several Blog administrators / correspondents who actively contribute by remote transmission to this blog.

So it could be some days before the copy (content) is seen by the Editor and properly formatted. We consider all representations and correct any facts that are clearly deficient.

OUR HUMAN RIGHT TO LAMPOON AND CRITICISE POLITICIANS

THE HIGH COURT has ruled....People have a right to lampoon and criticise politicians and public officials under the Human Rights Act, the High Court has ruled. We have the full High Court judgment, saved as a page on here. lampoon (lampoon) Pronunciation: /lamˈpuːn/ verb [with object]publicly criticize (someone or something) by using ridicule, irony, or sarcasm: the actor was lampooned by the press noun a speech or text lampooning someone or something: the magazine fired at God, Royalty, and politicians, using cartoons and lampoons.

Derivatives: lampooner noun lampoonery noun lampoonist noun Origin: mid 17th century: from French lampon, said to be from lampons 'let us drink' (used as a refrain), from lamper 'gulp down', nasalized form of laper 'to lap (liquid).

NUJ CODE OF CONDUCT

NUJ Code of Conduct

The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936.

The code is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to the it.

Members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles:

A journalist:

1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed

2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair

3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies

4 Differentiates between fact and opinion

5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means

6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest

7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work

8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge

9 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation

10 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed

11 A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare

12 Avoids plagiarism The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code.

The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code

The NUJ logo is always a link to the home page.

(As modified at Delegate Meeting 2011)

PBROTRIB CHARTER

Rights Holder CharterVersion: January 2009 v.3IntroductionThis Rights Holder Charter (“Charter”) sets out the terms and conditions governing the relationship between Julian Bray, Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch blog entitled Peterborough Tribune (PBROTRIB) on the Blogger and other platforms, and an individual or company making a Contribution to PBROTRIB (“Rights Holder”). The purpose of this document is to ensure that the Charter terms areincorporated into to all Contracts with each Rights Holder, so both parties areclear as to how PBROTRIB may use content. This Charter does not apply to content submitted:· using a feature or interactive service that allowsthe individual to upload to and display content on any of PBROTRIB websites(including social sites), apps, WAP sites or any web address owned or operatedby PBROTRIB as may link to the terms accessible at(User-Generated Content (“UGC”)); or· This Charter applies to all Rights Holder Contributions, except where the Rights Holder is already subject to a separatewritten agreement with PBROTRIB in relation to Contributions, or where PBROTRIBhas agreed in writing to vary or amend the Charter due to exceptional circumstances. Formation of the Contract

We will not be able to provide Credits where aRights Holder has not provided the relevant information.

Material You Send Us

Material You Send Us is a Contribution that isreceived by PBROTRIB from a Rights Holder. The Contribution may be solicited or unsolicited. The following are examples of Material You Send Us: PBROTRIB has seen the Rights Holders’ photograph on a third party website. PBROTRIB contacts theRights Holder and asks to use the photograph. (Solicited). A Rights Holder speculatively submits a range of photographs to and for PBROTRIB’s use. The Editor may or may not decide to use one or more of the photographs. (Unsolicited) Material You Send Us does not include UGC, Material We Request You To Send Us or material that is governed under anyother relationship between the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to accept any Material You Send Us for review and if accepted for review is under no obligation to offer a Contract. Should PBROTRIB decide that it wishes to use the Contribution, it will be governed by the terms of this Charter. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to use the Contribution. If you wish to submit a speculative Contribution to us, pleasecontact the appropriate PBROTRIB title. Please note that PBROTRIB will not be able to acknowledge receipt of your Contribution and any submission is at the Rights Holder’s own risk.Material You Send Us – Licence TermsPBROTRIB believes that Material You Send Us is theRights Holder’s property and that the Rights Holder should not need to give up all its rights for the Contribution to be used by PBROTRIB. Therefore, bysending us a Contribution, the Rights Holder grants the following irrevocable licence in perpetuity to PBROTRIB: The right to publish, reproduce, licence and sell the Contribution as part of the Publication throughout the world in the following formats:-- the physical printed Publication;-- in a replica layout in any electronic format ofthe Publication;-- on the website version of the Publication;-- in any PBROTRIB apps delivering the Publicationto a reader; and-- on any PBROTRIB social media pages.-- The right to publish extracts or the whole ofthe Publication (which may or may not include the Contribution) when promoting PBROTRIB’s business or subscriptions in media advertisement, show cards and other promotional aids. The Right to authorise The Newspaper Licensing Agency and similar reprographic rights organisations in other jurisdictions (“RROs”) to distribute or license the distribution of your Contribution throughout the world in any language(s) for RROs’ licensed acts and purposes as amended from time to time, and to keep available your Contribution through such RROs. The unlimited right to amend, edit, select, crop, retouch, add to or delete any part of the Contribution, in any format, whether electronic or otherwise, including the right to remove or amend any meta data associated with the Contribution.

POLICE NON EMERGENCY NUMBER

Peterborough Telegraph - News Feed

UPDATE:Following a tip off from Animalsearch. We recovered a cat from Kings Lynn yesterday 21/01/2017 too early to say if it is our missing cat as Vet Anna at Oakdale needs te sedate the poor creature who has been living rough, but fed by local householders.Sad to report, the stray is Not our missing cat, but the rescue cat will be rehomed once his feral demeanour can be muted +++++ Update on the feral. He's now had an operation to remove a few teeth and castrated. Still a bit frisky but Dphne of Peterborough Cats Rescue is working with him...Manwhile Wiggle is still missing... A small Grey Persian style rescue cat has gone missing, Small but fast, very trusting, likes to climb, enter cat flaps, climb fences also enters open windows. No collar, takes them off within hours.. He is identity chipped, very affectionate and likes a cuddle. Might have jumped into a car or van so could NOW be anywhere! Has small curley tail. Any information welcome.